At 11:30 PM 6/1/01 +1000, Conor MacNeill wrote: >I'd like to initiate a discussion of aspect implementation. I think we have >some level of agreement that we will have aspects but no real clear idea >about how they will look.
I am not so sure about that ;) I think first we should discuss how things will be represented in buildfile first, what type of aspects we will support and then finally goto implementation ;) This was on my list of things to discuss before I stopped sending them out. First - representation. Currently I would prefer to support the following style of aspect integration <mytask ant:id="foo" ant:classpath="..." ex:fail-on-error="false"> <doc:description>Blah blah blah.</doc:description> <some-sub-element ... /> </mytask> The important points in the above example are; * aspect "elements" (ie doc:description) do not have any attributes or sub-elements from another namespace * Only the top level task element has aspect "attributes" (though this would change with container tasks - more on this later) I believe that application of these rules will allow most aspects to be built but still allowing ease of implementation for both us and the aspect writers. It will also be simpler IMHO for build file writers ... though I am not sure about this yet. Need to test it more. Thoughts on this? (I will send another mail about types of aspects needed). Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
